FCC Has Repealed Net Neutrality Rules, But Congress Can Reverse The Decision

The Federal Communications Committee (FCC) was successful in repealing the net neutrality rules that the previous FCC leadership passed in 2015. However, Congress can still pass a law to simply reverse the repeal or even improve on the previous net neutrality rules.

Net Neutrality Rules Repealed

Back in February, FCC’s new chairman Ajit Pai, who is a former Verizon lawyer, issued a “Restoring Internet Freedom” order in the Federal Registry. That order has now gone into effect, which means the net neutrality rules have been canceled.

The objective of the net neutrality rules has been primarily to stop discrimination from internet service providers (ISPs) against both large and small websites based on the type of content they serve. This is how the term “net neutrality” was coined -- the idea was that every bit is the same and that ISPs can’t charge differentiated prices based on different types of services.

Potential Outcomes Resulting From The Repeal

Without the net neutrality rules, and in the context of a non-competitive ISP market in the United States, many fear that the ISPs will start charging websites additional fees depending on the type of content they serve through the ISPs’ networks.

Furthermore, the ISPs could also throttle or even block competing services. Before the FCC passed the net neutrality rules in 2015, there were already reports that Verizon and Comcast were slowing down Netflix, YouTube, and other services. Netflix and Google ended up cutting a deal with the ISPs.

The major issue with this tactic is that ISP customers already pay to get the whole internet at a certain speed. The ISPs are essentially breaking that contract with the users when they start picking and choosing which services to deliver at normal speed.

Many also feared that without the net neutrality rules in place, the ISPs could start offering its customers “service packages,” which would splinter the internet. As a result, the internet could become more like the TV networks, where you pay for different packages of internet services.

For instance, both the ISPs and the FCC have claimed that net neutrality has hurt investment. In reality, the ISPs' investments have continued to grow in the two years of post-net neutrality rules. Comcast even claimed that its first quarter of 2017 was its best in five years.

Another misleading ISP claim is that they want to get rid of Title II, and not net neutrality rules in general. However, without Title II, the FCC was no longer able to regulate ISPs due to a lawsuit that Verizon brought against the FCC to revoke the 2010 basic net neutrality rules. Verizon won that case because the FCC didn’t have to power to regulate the ISPs under the Title I classification that the ISPs were regulated under before.

Congress Can Establish A Strong Net Neutrality Framework

When fighting against the 2015 net neutrality rules, the ISPs said almost in unison that they would prefer to leave net neutrality rules to Congress instead of the FCC. Chances are they were saying that to make it more likely that the FCC’s rules would be repealed, or so they could support a bill with much weaker regulations and perhaps even some benefits for the ISPs.

Ideally, Congress should be the one to pass a net neutrality law, just as other countries’ Parliaments and governments have done, including the European Union, Brazil, and India. This way, the internet rules wouldn’t change every few years when the two main parties get to appoint their own FCC chairman. Net neutrality could become a campaign issue during the mid-term elections this year, which means it may have a better shot at becoming law if the people demand it from the candidates that want their votes.

In the meantime, Congress can still reverse FCC’s net neutrality repeal order through the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the same power Congress used earlier this year to reverse the previous FCC chairman’s broadband privacy framework. The Senate has already voted to save net neutrality, but it’s now up to House representatives to vote the same way.

i highly doubt the current house will back it. they have shown over and over they are unwilling to do it.

maybe after the next round of seat shuffling at midterms, they can get the last handful of votes needed to get it done. i do like how many of the states are already making waves with their own laws. gonna be hard for congress to do nothing if enough states make their own fragmented rules. the isp's will be begging congress to do something then instead of having to change their policies on a state by state bases. here's to hoping the west coast's laws start moving eastward.......

kenjitamura

1786133 said:

i highly doubt the current house will back it. they have shown over and over they are unwilling to do it.
maybe after the next round of seat shuffling at midterms, they can get the last handful of votes needed to get it done. i do like how many of the states are already making waves with their own laws. gonna be hard for congress to do nothing if enough states make their own fragmented rules. the isp's will be begging congress to do something then instead of having to change their policies on a state by state bases. here's to hoping the west coast's laws start moving eastward.......

Also uncertain as to whether the President would sign it into law or veto it. His positions on issues like this are impossible to pin down.

alextheblue

I'm OK with NN as long as it isn't poorly written like the last one, crafted by buffoons who have just about zero technical prowess. Would it absolutely KILL them to get some network engineers involved? As a gamer, I want them to be able to implement QoS, so they can favor real-time traffic during peak hours (when everyone is streaming video). This is especially a big deal if you're on cable. In order to do that, you have to be able to at LEAST discriminate based on the TYPE of traffic. Game and voice traffic don't even eat up much network capacity, but they're real-time and thus very latency dependent. Tiered traffic based on type, not source, that's all I want. That wasn't possible under the old NN implementation, where they specified ALL traffic be treated equally regardless of source OR type.

Math Geek

647291 said:

1786133 said:

i highly doubt the current house will back it. they have shown over and over they are unwilling to do it.
maybe after the next round of seat shuffling at midterms, they can get the last handful of votes needed to get it done. i do like how many of the states are already making waves with their own laws. gonna be hard for congress to do nothing if enough states make their own fragmented rules. the isp's will be begging congress to do something then instead of having to change their policies on a state by state bases. here's to hoping the west coast's laws start moving eastward.......

Also uncertain as to whether the President would sign it into law or veto it. His positions on issues like this are impossible to pin down.

i assume he would veto it. really no doubt in my mind considering his stance on other things. but he is rather unpredictable so who really knows.

with any luck the isp's will go nuts now and really show their true colors so folks can stop pretending. all alex wants is his own top tiered low latency, uncongested, perfect for his needs access. maybe he'll get it for another $25 a month over basic cost. of course he'll also want ntflix/hulu/etc to run well. that's gonna be another tier at another $15 a month. little bit of p2p traffic? no problem for another $25 a month. wait facebook uses a ton of network space but for another $15 a month they'll make sure that runs smoothly as well....... and so on and so on.

folks forget they were already doing this when the rules were put in place. so not like i am making this up or guessing. remember netflix going up $2 a month not long before the rules went into place?? that was to pay off the isp's who were slowing down their traffic. steam was also being held ransom but the rules saved them before they could be blackmailed.........

but hey i am just crazy and the phone/isp/cable companies have always had my best interest at heart and i'm just too stupid to realize it

mihen

Why did you use a false news story to push claims on net neutrality? The Comcast issue with throttling was only a network error on L3 Networks end. Comcast does throttle, but not on any specific site.

tacgnol06

They shouldn't be throttling at all. I pay for my speed, and have a 1TB cap on top of that. I expect to get at reasonably close to that. If they can't handle that, they should stop overselling.

gggplaya

Comcast did not slow down Netflix, please get this right!!!!!!!! They wouldn't allow Netflix to create a direct connection to their network, instead they wanted Netflix to use a tier 1 provider instead, which Comcast has agreements with for direct connection to their network. So Netflix wanted to create their own media network servers(CDN) inside the comcast network, but that would have been a conflict of interest as Comcast has it's own CDN service. That's when Netflix started complaining and crying foul and jumping on the net neutrality bandwagon. But this isn't really net neutrality, it's on the physical level, not throttling of specific packets. Net Neutrality laws have nothing to do with this, and would change nothing here.

It was later found out that COGENT, the tier 1 provider that Netflix uses to connect to Comcast was the one throttling Netflix, not Comcast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They said they prioritize their retail bandwidth first, and wholesale bandwidth second. Again, I'm not sure if Net Neutrality applies here either, it might but it might now based on how it was done. They completely limited Netflix as a wholesale customer.

ubercake

Politicians are realizing it's more lucrative for themselves if there is no net neutrality. Keep those campaign funds (and udocumented perks!) rolling in from the ISPs!!!

Money is what forms the current legal system in the U.S. Those who can afford the law to be interpreted their way win!

Dantte

TACGNOL06 and GGGPLAYA.... those facts are going to get you banned, LOL... and MATH GEEK's mom called, said you made him cry and is hiding away in the basement, how dare you point out his evidence as fake news.

6 months ago when Tom's was on a daily rampage of: "call your congressman, we need to save NN," I predicted not only would NN not be saved, but the sky WILL NOT FALL, as all the NN supporters claim. So far, I'm RIGHT!

New prediction, 1 year from today, the sky still will not fall and there will be no wide-spread issues with ISPs. 5 years from now we will not have tiered service such as Math Geek's example. The internet and ISP speeds will continue to grow bigger and faster with better service and prices will stay about the same (given some inflation.)

alextheblue

1786133 said:

all alex wants is his own top tiered low latency, uncongested, perfect for his needs access. maybe he'll get it for another $25 a month over basic cost. of course he'll also want ntflix/hulu/etc to run well. that's gonna be another tier at another $15 a month. little bit of p2p traffic? no problem for another $25 a month. wait facebook uses a ton of network space but for another $15 a month they'll make sure that runs smoothly as well....... and so on and so on.
folks forget they were already doing this when the rules were put in place. so not like i am making this up or guessing. remember netflix going up $2 a month not long before the rules went into place?? that was to pay off the isp's who were slowing down their traffic. steam was also being held ransom but the rules saved them before they could be blackmailed.........

I noticed you ignored any inconvenient facts about QoS. Not a shocker, facts are anathema right? Second, my internet plan was fine pre-NN. I'm on the bottom tier Verizon offers and both latency and bandwidth suit my needs. But to continue to maintain a good experience for users during peak streaming hours, they need to be able to favor some TYPES of packets over others. It's even worse if you try to apply all-packets-are-completely-equal NN to LTE connections. I love how NN advocates use these hypothetical scenarios with a dash of false information. You're not making anything up, you're just parroting something someone ELSE made up. All to push a badly written NN law - I already stated I would be OK with NN if it wasn't written like garbage.

The Netflix story as originally laid out by billionaire Reed "Lick my boots, peasants" Hastings has been debunked multiple times. Their own provider was caught throttling them, and that was the majority of the problem. Then there's the whole story about Comcast's sharing agreements - Comcast and others don't provide free infinite bandwidth to ANYONE. If it was written in an agreement they wouldn't have been able to put their foot down. If you want more capacity, you have to pay. They also weren't going to provide CDN ("Open Connect") services for FREE either. Why should they? Mr. Hastings just wanted bigger profit margins at the expense of others profit margins. Stop treating Netflix like they're some innocent victim, they're a frickin' Megacorp too. They can pay for their bandwidth. If you want to call it blackmail, fine, here's another recent blackmail story:

I just bought a 1-ton truck. I'm low on fuel, and the gas station is blackmailing me into paying more to fill it than they did with my previous vehicle, a Honda Insight! They should charge me the same, even though my needs have increased!